The finest printer in the world can still only create as nice of a giclee as the image given to it. Most artwork is being reproduced today from photographs taken with digital cameras. I, instead, use wide format fine art scanners. Wide format fine art scanners are very rare and expensive, and most print shops even say that flatbed scanners over 11"x17" don't exist! In fact, I use two much larger flatbed scanners, a 18"x24" one and a 42"x60" one! Compare a high end digital camera's 18megapixel image to an 18"x24" flatbed's 155megapixel image, and, well, there's really no comparison. The best way to create an image of artwork is to scan it using a fine art quality scanner, and most print shops simply don't have access to one, let alone even know they exist.
This is why when I take an original painted on canvas and make a paper giclee of it, it still looks like it's on canvas. My images capture the actual texture of the canvas, where digital cameras and non-fine art scanners don't.
(There are, of course, engineering/blueprint scanners that scan a piece by rolling it through. This works well for engineering schematics and architectural plans, but not fine art. They aren't designed to capture enough detail for a work of art, and they require the piece being scanned to be paper-thin so it can be rolled through. They simply are not designed for a thick pieces, like stretched canvas. Even for thin pieces of artwork, the thought of rolling a delicate original piece of artwork through one of those scanners worries me and most operators of the equipment, due to the stress the machine puts on the paper by bending it, and the chance of it jamming and completely wrecking the artwork. Having taken the risk myself before, I saw those scanners don't produce an image that is anything like that of a flatbed fine art scanner.)
